3S2 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



[November 1, 1882. 



tliat T hold certain views not set fortli in my letter, 

 aud arguiug against them. Far be it from me to at- 

 tribute uo value to the nitrogen added in our manures, 

 but what I do lay stress upon is that, there are 

 certain circumstances in which its addition is positively 

 injiirious, in causing the trees to make wood at the 

 expense of croji. That our trees over the gi-eater 

 portion of the country show such a power to clothe 

 themselves with foliage, is, in my opinion, of itself 

 an argument that they are not suffering from want 

 of nitrogen, and any artificial addition of nitrogen will 

 only help them in the same direction. The 

 main point of my letter was that the assimilation of 

 mineral matter nrust proceed hand in hand with that 

 of the nitrogenous, otherwise the tree would not crop. 

 Is there anything in this to lead to the inference that 

 I place no value on nitrogen ? I take it that I am a 

 closer follower of M. Ville in advocating a higher 

 proportion of mineral matter than of nitrogenous in 

 manm-e, seeing that M. Ville considers it sufficient to 

 return to the soil haif the nitrogen taken away by 

 the crop. Now seeing that, according to Hughes, the 

 soil loses by a crop of 7 cwt. an acre only 21 Ih of 

 nitrogen, the application of GOO tb of bones or say J lb 

 per tree is quite sufficient to restore the full amount 

 of nitrogen required by the soil, and on the theory 

 of M. Ville have as much again to go to waste with- 

 out impairing its protluctiveness. I see no reason, 

 therefore, why I sl.ould be in the market for beef, 

 otherwise castorcake, so soon as "X." expects. Suffici- 

 ent liuto the day is the evil thereof, aud as long as our 

 oldest estates show themselves to be so abundantly 

 supnlied with nitrogen it appears to me a secondary 

 consideration whether there is a slight waste of nitrates 

 from the soil taking place or not. 



However much our most experienced planters may 

 be inclined to place faith in cattle manure, which 

 " X." says is chiefly valued for the nitrogen it contains, 

 it is probable that the more experienced they are 

 the more often they have witnessed that cattle 

 manure frequently puts wood only upon the trees, 

 which is not very profitable cultivation for the pro- 

 prietor of the estate. Cattle manure is not valued so much 

 on account of its nitrogen as for the reason that it sup- 

 plies plants with all the necessary elements of food in the 

 most available fonn ; it is chiefly deficient in phosphoric 

 acid which should therefore be added to it artificially. 

 The value of cattle manure depends much upon the 

 time that it is applie<l ; if used fresh from the shed it 

 is of little value on account of its nitrogen, the pro- 

 portion of that element being at that period liut 

 trifling, as compared with the mineral. If plauters 

 upon higli-lying estates would but avail themselves of 

 this fact and use their cattle manure straight from 

 the shed with an aildition of lune, they would find 

 tlieir crops considerably better than they now do by 

 following' the old custom of applying it when fully 

 fermsnted. I fear that "W." is too well acquainted 

 with vegetable physiology and the gases which plants 

 inhale and exhale, to find much assistance in "X."'s 

 ,sugge>tiou, in the latter part of his letter, towards 

 explai ii'ng the origin of leaf-disease. The assimilation 

 of fac s is, I should say, a more difficult process to 

 some thinkers, than that of nitrates by the coft'ee tree. — 

 Von-s faithfully, W. D. B. 



COMPARISON OF THE VALUK OF CINCHONA 

 MACHINES. 



September 18th, 1882. 

 UK.\r. Sir,— In your issue of the 14th, your corre- 

 spou lent " iiauik" desires to know the number of 

 poun 'a of baik which can be harves'ed with my 

 oinchiMia 'iiacliine, inclusive of the labour employed 

 'in C'lllecting the twigs. Reading his letter has re- 

 ca'l^d ;o my mind a, point ou which I have often 



in-isted, in comparing the relative efficiency of differ- 

 ent ciuchoua niachiues. Ttiis is, that we must not 

 include iu our con.-ideriitiou thf labour riqiiired to 

 supply material for the machine. To do so inevit- ■ 

 a'oly vitiates the correct proportion ; because the 

 same number of coolies «ith two different machines 

 may require a different number of coolies to keep 

 them supplied, the latter number naturally increas- 

 ug witti Ihf efficiency of the machme supplied. 

 My meaning will be at once rendered clear by put- 

 ting a c:ise in figures, calling our mnchmea No. 1 and 

 No. 2. Let us say that, miiterial supplied, with 

 No. 1 machine '6 coolies yield us 360 lb of bark: 

 and that simil.rly with No. 2 machine 6 coolies yield 

 us ISO lb. Then, in the first case, we have 60 lb 

 per man and in the second 30 lb and hence it is of 

 course clearly proved that No. 1 is twice as good as 

 No. 2, as an appliance. Now let us add 6 more 

 coolies in our first cise to supply twias sufficient to 

 give 360 lb bark. Then in our second case «e shall 

 only require, otber things being etpial, 3 coolies to 

 supply twigs for ISO lb bark. We thus have 30 lb 

 per head in the first case and 20 lb per head iu the 

 second case. But 20 is more than half of 30, and hence 

 it is shewn that an unjust estimation of the value 

 of the appliance itself ia arrived at by the method 

 of " Kanik." 



It must in fact be remembered that the goodness 

 of the machines employed is only oue of the causes 

 determining the whole average cost of the harvestmg; 

 that the two do not vary directly together, and that 

 therefore it is a mistake to estimate the former by 

 tlie latter. I have trespassed already too much on 

 your valuable space in cou;idering such a simple 

 point. So I will only add that I think my machines 

 will always peel whit I huve adveitized them to 

 peel, without any difficulty, and that I, equally with 

 " Kanik,'' shall be glad to hear the reports of those 

 who have patronized my invention. — Yours faith- 

 fully, J. F. W. GORE. 



iSekiculture. — With the view of promoting the silk- 

 industry ' in this count:y, the Governmei-it of India 

 made arrangements for the supply of a small quant- 

 ity of silk-worms' eggs of the univoltine variety, 

 mid offered to place at the disposal of His Excellency 

 the Governor in Council two ounces of these eggs for 

 experiment during next cold weather. Besides the sup- 

 ply they offered free of cost, Mr. Buck inquired 

 whether His Excellency the.Governor in Council would 

 consent to purchase 1 lb of eggs in April 1883 for 

 trial in the following jear ; and if so, whether the 

 multivoltine or the univoltine variety would be pre- 

 ferred, and by what d.ite the eggsi will be required 

 for hatching. The date should lorrespoud as closely 

 as pos.'ibie with the se.ison when the mulberry is iu 

 new leaf, i. e., iu or towards the close of the cold 

 weather.— Madras Mail. 



A Ceylon Pl.\nter in Java. — An exCeylon planter 

 writing ou 26th August says : — ' We have had a fearlul 

 spell of wet weather here: out of 120 days, only 3 days 

 without rain, and that, m bungalows made of bamboo, 

 with mud fli.tors, is anything but pleasant, and slightly 

 conducive to rheumatic fever. We grow our cofTee out 

 liere under a shade tree called 'daitap,' and the better 

 ami thicker the riadap ur.iws, the bet'er your colVec, and 

 the larger your crop. It seems very eurious after Ceylon, 

 for one can't get the coffee to crop at all under 

 shade there, and here it won't crop well without 

 it. They say the wind is awful here, but, as it does not 

 come ou till January, ! urn unalle to tell you anything 

 about it. I was very much shocked to see the death of 

 S. ft. Aitken in your p.ipor ; 1 did not know he 

 was suffering from any ailment at the time I left. 

 Wishing you every smcess iu the old-country, which 

 I look on as a sort of home from out here." 



